JULY 1908—NOVEMBER 1911

SOURCE: LS/v25 vol XXV

## IV. STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTS
J U L Y  1908  — N O V E M B E R 1911

STATEMENT BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF "PROLETARII"
To a Member of the Bolshevik Center, comrade Viktor.
[27 June 1908] *. Geneva.

The Editorial Board of 
"Proletarii" notes that none of the 
organizations has been informed of the departure of comrade Maximov or of everything that has occurred over the last 3 days (as well as previously). To the few individual persons to whom such communications were made, we immediately present the demand for unconditional silence. We categorically undertake henceforth to take all measures to localize information about all that has occurred within the circle of members of the B.C.

We give such an undertaking on the condition that comrade Maximov

1) renounces the distribution of his letter to the editorial board among the local organizations,
2) undertakes, as we do, to take measures so that individual persons informed of his departure from the editorial board, etc., do not continue any private communications on this matter,
3) defers the presentation of all his grievances and accusations to the forthcoming meeting of B.C. members (located abroad and en route abroad),
4) comrade Maximov does not insist on publication in "Proletarii" of his departure.

To the Editorial Board of "Proletarii"
N. Lenin.
Ip. Dorov. **
Secretary of B.C. Sablina

* Printed from a copy written in an unknown hand. Ed.
** I. F. Dubrovinsky. Ed.
*** N. K. Krupskaya. Ed.

---

STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTS

1 The date is established on the basis of the dating of A. Bogdanov's response to the present editorial board statement; the response was given by Bogdanov, in all probability, on the same day (see below, note 3).

2 The conflict of the "Proletarii" editorial board with Bogdanov arose from philosophical disagreements between Lenin and Bogdanov.

3 To this editorial board statement, Bogdanov answered (also through the mediation of V. Taratuty) with the following letter: "To comrade Viktor. Dear comrade, I naturally have nothing against such a localization of information about the conflict that has occurred as outlined in the document presented to me by you from the editorial board of 'Proletarii'. I assume, until the question is resolved by the forthcoming B.C. meeting, the obligations formulated in the four points of the editorial board's statement. With comradely greetings, Maximov. 27 June n.s. 1908."

---

LETTER TO A. I. LYUBIMOV.
[18 August 1909]. Bonbons, Department of Seine and Loire.

Dear Mark! I am sending my reply to the Capri people for Leva*. If he deems it necessary, let him make a copy (X)** for Inok, and then send the letter to Capri—I don't know the addresses. I think it's possible to send it in two envelopes: on the outer one write: Signor Massimo Gorki. Villa Blaesus. Capri. Italie,—and on the inner one: for the Executive Commission of the school.

I don't know of another address.

Regarding Trotsky, I must say that I will be most decisively opposed to assistance for him if he rejects (and he has already rejected!) equality in the editorial board offered to him by a member of the Central Committee.* Without a decision on this question by the Executive Commission of the B.C., n o  steps for assistance to Trotsky are permissible. Therefore, the economic commission has the right to agree to the publication of Pravda in the Proletarii printing press only if this is n o t  assistance to a new faction (for Trotsky is founding a new faction, whereas the C.C. member proposed he join the party instead)—but rather a s t r i c t l y  commercial transaction, for payment, like any other, on condition of freedom for the typesetters, etc. Most decisively I insist that the question of our attitude toward Pravda will still be decided by the Executive Commission of the B.C. and that not a single step of assistance can be taken before this decision, nothing can bind us.

Warmly yours, N. Lenin.

P. S. I ask that in any case a copy be made of my letter to the Capri people. It may prove necessary for the B.C.

1 The date is established on the grounds that this letter was, in all probability, written simultaneously with the letter appended to it from Lenin, his "reply to the Capri people" of 18 August 1909 (see Works, XIV, 116).

* The matter concerns Trotsky's negotiations with the Bolshevik center regarding material assistance in publishing the newspaper "Pravda" in Vienna (regarding Trotsky's Viennese "Pravda" see Works, XIV, 520, note 88) and the conditions of this assistance from the Bolsheviks.

---

DRAFT LETTER FROM THE BOLSHEVIK CENTER TO THE COUNCIL OF THE SCHOOL ON CAPRI
[Between 18 and 30 August 1909]. Bonbons, Department of Seine and Loire.

The Executive Commission of the B.C. was extremely delighted by the communication from the "council of the party school on Capri" of 16.8.09 that it had nothing against "ideological control" on the part of the B.C.

But in order to decide whether the B.C. can undertake this control and implement it, whether it can provide literary and financial support to the school, as the Council writes—for this it is necessary to know the school's affairs in detail. And the B.C. knows nothing detailed about them.

If the Council of the school was able to discuss (as it writes) the relation of the party school to the B.C., knowing the views of the B.C. from the published resolutions and Proletarii, knowing the composition of the B.C. from its former members—then the B.C. is not in a position to discuss the question of the B.C.'s attitude toward the Council school's request, for the B.C. does not know: (1) what the Council of the school is, (2) what the Executive Commission of the school is, (3) what the school's program is (it promised to send it but the Executive Commission of the school did not), (4) what the current composition of the school's lecturers is and (5) students in the school, (6) what the school's current means are, (7) what the proposed duration of the courses is, (8) how closely the school's students are tied to its current location, i.e. the island of Capri, (9) would the school's students be able to come to Paris (which three members of the B.C. wrote them personally about), for what period, etc.?

Not having such information, the B.C. can for now say only one thing: [it is] ready to provide every kind of literary and lecturing assistance to all members of s.d. organizations operating in Russia, as well as to all comrades delegated to the B.C. by these organizations in the matter of mastering s.d. worldview, not refusing financial assistance within the limits of possibility and upon discussion of this question in connection with assistance to local organizations.

The B.C. herewith officially sends to the Council of the school:

1) a complete set of Proletarii Nos. 39—46; 2) a letter from the B.C. on the school (printed); 3) resolutions of the B.C.

With s.d. greetings,
Executive Commission of the Expanded Editorial Board of Proletarii.

1 The Bolshevik center (expanded editorial board of "Proletarii") from the very beginning of the organization of the Capri factional school gave it proper assessment of this enterprise of A. Bogdanov (see the resolution of the meeting of the expanded editorial board of "Proletarii" on the party school on Capri, Works, XIV, 102) and conducted a struggle for the transfer of the school to the Central Committee or Bolshevik center. On 3—4 August 1909 the school opened, and on 5 August classes began. At the meeting of 16 August the school council decided "to send an invitation to the expanded editorial board of 'Proletarii' to take part in the school's work, to help it with literary forces and monetary means" and declared that it had nothing against ideological control by the expanded editorial board of "Proletarii" if the latter found it necessary to implement it. The Executive Commission (or committee) of the council of the school brought this decision to the knowledge of the B.C.

The present draft letter, written by Lenin, represents a reply to this official appeal from the council of the Capri school. But Lenin's reply was not sent; a different draft letter, written by Zinoviev, was adopted and sent, which Lenin mentions in his second letter to Lyubimov from early September (see below, p. 42). This reply by Zinoviev was printed in the appendix to No. 47—48 of "Proletarii" from 24 September 1909.

* The date is established on the following grounds: judging from the content of the letter, it was written later than Lenin's letter to the organizers of the Capri party school of 18 August (Works, XIV, 116) and earlier than his letter to the students of the school of 30 August 1909 (ibid., 118).

* Three members of the Bolshevik center who answered the executive commission of the school council on their own behalf were: Lenin, Zinoviev, Dubrovinsky. Lenin, for his part, wrote about this to the school organizers on 18 August.

4 Here the reference is apparently to a letter-resolution from the Bolshevik center sent to the Moscow Committee during the preparation of the school. In this letter the B.C. pointed out the anti-party character of the proposed school and declared that it refused to answer for its orientation.

5 For notice and resolutions of the meeting of the expanded editorial board of "Proletarii" see Works, XIV, 89.

---

LETTER TO G. E. ZINOVIEV.
[24 August 1909]. Bonbons, Department of Seine and Loire.

Dear Grigory! I received Nos. 7—8 of the Social-Democrat. I protest against Trotsky's signature: it is necessary to remove signatures. (I haven't yet had time to read the articles).

Regarding Proletarii I think we should place in it: 1) an article on the elections in St. Petersburg (in connection with the vulgarity of Rech' and Vodovozov, if Rech' didn't distort the matter); 2) on the Swedish strike—a summary article without fail; 3) the same on Spanish events; 4) on the menshe with regard to their polemic (the filthiest) with the Genevan (Georgien) anti-liquidator; 5) in an appendix as a separate sheet a reply to the "Open Letter" of Maximov and Co. We must answer them properly so that these swine don't mislead the public with their lying.

After three weeks of rest I'm beginning to recover. I'd probably take on Nos. 4 and 5,—in the extreme case also 1, but I'm afraid to promise 4. Write what else there is for Proletarii No. 3, your opinion and the d e a d l i n e s  (exactly).

Nos. 2 and 3 can be compiled from "Vorwärts": I'll send it to you if you undertake to write.

Regarding Pravda, did you read Trotsky's letter to Inok? I hope you're convinced, if you did read it, that Trotsky behaved like the basest careerist and factionist of the type of Ryazanov and Co.? Either equality in the editorial board, submission to the C.C. and no moving to Paris anyone except Trotsky (he wants to "arrange" at our expense this whole warm little group of Pravda!—the scoundrel)—or a break with this swindler and exposure of him in the Central Organ. He talks about the party, but conducts himself worse than all other factionists.

Warmly yours, N. Lenin.

My address: Mr. Wl. Oulianioff. (Chez madame Lecreux). Bonbons (Seine-et-Marne).

P.S. We'll give Kamenev up for lost, it seems? The promised feuilleton of 4 months (or half a year) on the "Public Movement"???

1 The date is established on the basis of the mention in the letter of the just-published Nos. 7—8 of "Social-Democrat" from 21 (8) August 1909, as well as on the basis of comparison of the present letter with Lenin's letter to M. A. Ulyanova of 24 August 1909 (see "Letters to Relatives 1894—1919" 1931, p. 346). Lenin's indication in both letters that he spent 3 weeks on rest suggests that both letters were written on the same day.

1 The reference is to Trotsky's signature ("N. Trotsky") under an article (feuilleton) "External and Internal Difficulties" in No. 7—8 of "Social-Democrat".

* Here the reference is to the content of the forthcoming No. 47—48 of "Proletarii". All the listed material (including three articles by Lenin) was published in this issue in somewhat altered order.

Speaking of the polemic of the Mensheviks with "the Genevan (Georgien) anti-liquidator," Lenin had in mind an unsigned editorial article in "Voice of the Social-Democrat" No. 15 "Regarding the Article of a Genevan Comrade." This was a reply to the anti-liquidator article "Two Words Regarding a Topical Question," published in the same issue of the "Voice of the S.D." with the notation: "Geneva, 22 June 1909" and signed "Georgien" ("Georgian").

4 The reference is to Lenin's writing for No. 47—48 of "Proletarii" three articles: "On the Elections in St. Petersburg," "Exposed Liquidators" and "On the Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God-Building" (Works, XIV, 125—166).

* The reference is to articles on the Swedish strike and Spanish events.

6 Trotsky's letter to I. Dubrovinsky has not been found.

7 The reference is to L. Kamenev's article "The Liquidation of the Hegemony of the Proletariat in the Menshevik History of the Revolution," published in Nos. 47—48 and 49 of "Proletarii". Kamenev's article was devoted to criticism of the first volume of the five-volume edition "The Public Movement in Russia at the Beginning of the 20th Century," published under the editorship of L. Martov, P. Maslov and A. Potresov.

---

LETTER TO G. E. ZINOVIEV.
[Between 24 August and 4 September 1909]. Bonbons, Department of Seine and Loire.

Dear Grigory! I'm sending you Vorwärts and Kamenev's article. The latter, in my opinion, must be placed and immediately, for we are already terribly delayed with this in all respects absolutely necessary article for Proletarii. It will have to be divided into 2 feuilletons. The first I've marked for you (pp. 1—33) and corrected. M a y b e  you'll manage to shorten it further? I don't refuse to try to shorten it further in the proofs: send it immediately to press and order the proofs sent to me at once. This is an important article, and we must work on it more carefully.

It's annoying that Kamenev works carelessly. A splendid topic—yet he spreads himself thin, scatters, goes round and round, doesn't know how to properly seize the center and essence of the matter.

Shouldn't we send him the second half for reworking in this sense? That would be good! Write to him in the name of us both, that we are asking him to rewrite the second part (p r e s e r v i n g  t h e  f i r s t  v e r s i o n)—the changes in the indicated spirit—that he will then get a superb article, etc.—and send him the second part. There's not much hope that he'll rework it, but we must insist and insist.

He promised a leading article for Proletarii a few days ago. We'll see.

I'll write articles for Proletarii and send them directly to the press,—for you want to be in Paris on 4.IX.

I'm not planning to return before 15.IX.

You're wrong to keep Kamenev in Arcachon. If he's rested, let him return, and we absolutely must send him with reports.

Warmly yours, N. Lenin.

I won't undertake to deal with the Bundists. But an attack on their No. 2 is necessary. You do it. Let's put out a big fighting issue. Write an article against No. 2.

1 The reference is to a complete set of issues of "Vorwärts" from the end of July and August 1909, where articles and detailed correspondence appeared daily from No. 174 of 29 July—on the uprising in Barcelona (in Spain) and from No. 178 of 2 August—on the general strike in Sweden. Lenin was sending this material to Zinoviev for articles in "Proletarii".

2 The reference is to Lenin's articles for No. 47—48 of "Proletarii" (see the previous letter to Zinoviev).

This paragraph is inscribed in pencil at the beginning of the letter in the manuscript. Ed.

9 Here the reference is apparently to No. 2 of the newspaper "Voice of the Bund" for September 1909, the organ of the Bund Central Committee, published illegally in Russia. Nothing was printed about this in "Proletarii". Only in No. 9 of "Social-Democrat" from 13 November is there a brief note of a chronological character about "Voice of the Bund" No. 2.

---

LETTER TO A. I. LYUBIMOV.
[Early September 1909]. Bonbons, Department of Seine and Loire.

Dear Mark! Of course I fully agree to any use you make of my letter in your report and to its publication. Only keep in mind that I am writing an article for Proletarii in which I will treat this gang of scoundrels—Maximov and Co.—directly as blackguards and call their school nothing other than an "Egyptian den." So that there be n o  misunderstandings: I agree to speak "gently" only w i t h  w o r k e r s  w h o  h a v e  p e r s o n a l l y  a p p r o a c h e d  m e  w i t h  t h e i r  s i g n a t u r e s.

Maximov and Co.—a band of adventurers who have lured some workers into the Egyptian den. To avoid contradiction, do not distribute my letter among the public, but send it exclusively to organizations, with the f o l l o w i n g  r e s e r v a t i o n  (better if this reservation too is printed):

"The proper reply to that company of offended literati, unrecognized p h i l o s o p h e r s  and ridiculed god-builders, which has hidden its so-called 'school' from the party, will be given in Proletarii. The present letter is a personal reply from L[enin] only to those [workers] personally who have personally approached him."

As to Bogdanov's report, I would advise either not to go at all—or to answer him in such a way as to knock once and for all the desire to interfere with us. This is base cowardice—to force one's way into another's faction when you've already been kicked out. There's nothing more harmful than mincing words now. A c o m p l e t e  b r e a k  a n d  w a r  s t r o n g e r  t h a n  w i t h  t h e  m e n s h e s.  This war will quickly teach the fools who still haven't "figured it out."

Warmly yours, N. Lenin.

P.S. And Plekhanov's Diary!!!? Don't forget that I'm waiting for it.

1 The reference is to Lenin's letter to the students of the Capri school from 30 August 1909.

* If I manage to finish it, I'll send it to you tomorrow by express mail,—m a y b e  it will arrive in time for your report.

2 Lenin at this time was writing the article "On the Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God-Building," published in the appendix to No. 47—48 of "Proletarii" from 24 (11) September 1909 (Works, XIV, 137).

3 Plekhanov, having withdrawn from the editorship of the Menshevik "Voice of the Social-Democrat," at this time resumed the publication of his "Diary of a Social-Democrat". After a three-year break, in August 1909 No. 9 of the "Diary of a Social-Democrat" came out, devoted entirely to the struggle against liquidationism. This is what Lenin refers to in the present letter.

---

LETTER TO A. I. LYUBIMOV.
[Early September 1909]. Bonbons, Department of Seine and Loire.

Dear Mark! While I was occupied yesterday with an article, I made an error by missing in Grigory's draft (the reply to the Capri people in the name of the E.C.*) an invitation of a delegate. This nonsense absolutely must be removed: it is necessary to invite the students to Paris to study, certainly not a delegate. A fierce otzovists or even Lyadov or Aleksinsky could be chosen as delegates, and then we would find ourselves fooled. No, there can be no question of summoning a delegate.

I still haven't received Plekhanov's Diary. I urgently request that you arrange for the expedition to send it immediately. I cannot write the commissioned article without it.

Warmly yours, N. Lenin.

Yesterday I sent you a check by registered mail. I hope you received it?

1 On Zinoviev's draft (the "reply to the Capri people in the name of the E.C.") see note 1 on p. 37.

2 The article "Exposed Liquidators" was published in No. 47—48 of "Proletarii" from 18 (5) September 1909 (Works, XIV, 130).

---

LETTER TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP *
[September, before 24, 1909]. Paris.

The Editorial Board of Proletarii, in view of the distribution among foreign s.d. groups of a printed sheet signed by "Sasha" (the sheet is attached hereto), containing accusations against the Editorial Board of Proletarii,—in view, further, of the fact that some opponents of Proletarii both from among the "expelled" Bolsheviks after the recent conference of Big-ks* as well as from among** some Menshe-ks are using this sheet for discussion among groups*** of a "sensational" "matter," which in no way can be subject to the examination and consideration of any local party groups,—requests the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. to take to its examination the matter of the accusations of "Sasha," and to consider these accusations on the merits and to render an official decision of the highest organ of the party.

1 The date is established on the basis of an editorial note for the same reason at the end of the appendix to No. 47—48 of the newspaper "Proletarii" from 24 (11) September 1909. The note says that "the editorial board of 'Proletarii'... has already appealed to the Central Committee with a request to examine this matter."

---

NOTES ON A LETTER FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE SCHOOL ON CAPRI.
[Later than 28 September 1909]. Paris.

Esteemed comrades! The Council of the school considers it necessary to deny the assertion expressed by you that the organizers of the school strove to use the school for the purpose of violating the unity of the Bolshevik faction and struggling against the editorial board of "Proletarii"...............sets the practical implementation of the transfer in dependence on the following necessary conditions:

1) The School transfers its place of residence to Paris as a whole party institution, i.e. with the complete composition of the present listeners and lecturers.

2)... The School must exist as a permanent institution... Therefore, the Council of the school asks the editorial board of Proletarii to inform whether it finds it possible and necessary to guarantee the permanent existence of the school.

3) The internal organization of the school is preserved on the previous basis and the management of its affairs remains in the hands of the Council, supplemented by new lecturers; the invitation of lecturers, however, remains specifically in the hands of the listeners. As for the form of control on the part of the editorial board, the Council asks it to clarify in advance its practical assumptions on this question.

4)... The Council of the school considers it necessary to compensate on the part of the editorial board for the additional expenses caused by the transfer according to the following calculation:

Transfer of fifteen listeners and those 4 lecturers who cannot transfer at their own expense, at 100 Fr. for each—1900 Fr. For the purchase of clothing for the listeners suitable for residence in Paris—500 Fr...............

Total—3000 Fr., three thousand Francs.

These funds, according to the custom established in the school, must be transferred directly to the Council of the school, whereby 2400 fr. is necessary to send immediately for the transfer itself.

Furthermore, the Council of the school asks the editorial board to inform it what lecturers it has in mind and on which subjects they can teach...

11 yes, 2 abstained, 2 against the proposing of conditions.

Note.

The lecturers of the party school heard in their capacity as members of the Council of the school the letter reported to them from the B.C. to the listeners with a proposal of transfer to Paris and declared that they had nothing in principle against the transfer of the school to Paris...

28 September 1909.

---

DRAFT REPLY TO THE LETTER OF THE COUNCIL OF THE SCHOOL ON CAPRI.
[End of September—beginning of October 1909]. Paris.

Esteemed comrades! In view of the obviously mocking character of your letter of 28.9.09 in reply to our proposal to "transfer the actual organization and direction of the work of setting up a propaganda school abroad to the Central Committee of the Party or the expanded editorial board of Proletarii," we consider it unnecessary to reply to it and can propose to you only one thing: publish your letter.

1 Instead of this draft letter to the Council of the Capri school, the following reply was sent: "Esteemed comrades! One of two perspectives outlined in our letter to you is being justified: you wish not to carry out the resolutions of local organizations and to negotiate with the organ of the Bolsheviks only as a separate closed group. You understand perfectly well that, taking this position, you yourselves hinder further negotiations. We can only advise you: publish your last letter to us." The author of this letter was probably Zinoviev. "Our (of the Bolshevik center. Ed.) letter to you (workers who came to study at the school on Capri. Ed.)" was a letter in the name of the editorial board of "Proletarii" sent in reply to the official invitation of the Council of the school (see above, p. 37, note 1). "Two perspectives" outlined in that letter were formulated as follows: "Either our attempt with your comradely assistance will succeed, or the initiators of the school—if they continue to conduct their special group line and hinder the party approach to the matter—will finally expose their real intentions to all." The proposal of the B.C. to "publish the last letter" of the Council of the school was carried out, but with great delay, only after the end of classes in the school—in the "Report of the First Higher Social-Democratic Propaganda and Agitation School for Workers" (ed. Council of the school, Paris, 1919). The letter of the B.C. quoted in this note was also published there.

---

LETTER TO THE STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL ON CAPRI.
[October 1909]. Paris.

Dear comrades! We received both your letters about the split that has begun in the "school." These are the first comradely letters from like-minded persons that have come to us from Capri, [they] made us all extremely pleased. With all our hearts we greet the clear demarcation in the school.

For the true character of the school to be revealed as a new center of a new faction, time was of course necessary. We did not doubt for a moment that the most conscious s.d. workers would sooner or later figure out the situation and find their way to the right path. From Moscow we are being written to that fierce "Bogdanovists" from among the school students have been received there, openly agitating for the Capri center and extremely helping all s.d. workers to understand the true significance of the Capri school.

Now to the matter at hand. You need, comrades, to think carefully about the new situation that has developed, so that we together with you can discuss it and take the right steps, choose the right time for them. You understand, of course, that a split in the school is now inevitable: you yourselves write that you cannot get along in such a school. You of course don't expect to act together with fierce "Bogdanovists." And once it has come to this, that a split in the school is inevitable, you must clearly understand the significance of this split, clearly imagine what struggle follows from the split, how the Bogdanovists will try to "neutralize" all of you (i.e. deprive you of the possibility of exercising your influence and telling the truth about the school), to compromise all of you (the label "agent of the B.C.," launched, according to your words, by Aleksinsky, is only the beginning; these are just the flowers, the berries lie ahead) and so on and so forth.

You must think this all through well and act firmly, decisively, carefully, as in battle: you yourselves write that "battles" are taking place in the school over platform. This is the beginning of battles against you everywhere and everywhere that the Bogdanovists penetrate.

You must start by determining your numbers precisely. How many decisive opponents of the "Bogdanovist" platform are there? Can this number be increased or not? If yes, then how and when? If no, then what is the conduct of the "neutral ones"? You must think through what your conduct should be in the inevitable split of the school in order if possible to win over these neutral ones, or at worst not hand them over entirely to the Bogdanovists.

Furthermore, how do you think of arranging your departure from the school? As a simple departure or as a departure because of a battle over platforms? Of course, if the battle developed in you as quickly as one might have thought from your first two letters, then the split, m a y b e,  is already here, that is, m a y b e,  the Bogdanovists have already driven you out, simply driven you out, then [...]*  there's nothing to say. If this hasn't happened yet,—think carefully how to arrange your departure. You must give an a n s w e r  t o  a l l  R u s s i a n  o r g a n i z a t i o n s. You will have to refute precisely and clearly, w i t h  f a c t s  i n  h a n d, all those attacks that will now rain down on you by thousands from the "Bogdanovists." You must prepare to defend your views both on the school and on the "platform" of the Bogdanovists.

If the question arises about your departure, you must secure funds from the school so that you can travel to Russia. This is the school's obligation, just as before the split of the Big-ks the B.C.'s obligation was to give money for departure to Russia (after the December party conference of 1908) both to Lyadov and Vsevolod* and Stanislav*. They then demanded funds from us and received them.

Of course, we will help you*** both as regards passports and as regards a m e e t i n g  ****  (in Paris or somewhere in a small town, so it would be more conspiratorial and so you would lose less time, so it would be cheaper). The place of our meeting we will discuss specially and choose subsequently. Our finances are not brilliant, and we can provide only modest assistance.

I write all this to you for clarifying the matter and for the exchange of views. Upon receiving from you more precise answers, upon clarifying all questions in our correspondence, we will convene the Executive Commission of the expanded editorial board of Proletarii, and then the amount of assistance, the time and place of our meeting, and so forth will be decided.

Reply more fully. Can't you give us a d i r e c t  a d d r e s s  t o  y o u?

Greetings. Secretary of Proletarii.

1 The present letter is a reply to two letters from workers, students of the Capri school, who separated from the Bogdanovian group: 1) to the letter from a delegate of the Sokolniki district of Moscow I. I. Pankratov ("Starover") and 2) to the collective letter of five—that same Pankratov, delegates of the Presnya-Khamovnicheskii district of Moscow N. U. Ustinov ("Vasily"), Moscow district organization V. E. Lyushvin ("Pakhoм") and A. S. Romanov ("Ali Aleksinsky") and Orel district organization N. N. Kozyrev ("Foma"). These letters of the Lenin-supporting students were published together with Lenin's article "Shameful Failure" (Works, XIV, 195) in a separate (first) offprint from No. 50 of "Proletarii." The publication of the letters of the Capri protesters caused a storm among the school's Bogdanovists and led to the exclusion of this five from the school. With them was also excluded N. E. Vilonov ("Mikhail"), one of the school's organizers.

* V. P. Denisov. Ed.
** A. V. Sokolov. Ed.
*** In the manuscript, corrected by N. K. Krupskaya: "we will try to help." Ed.
**** Corrected by N. K. Krupskaya: "we will arrange a meeting." Ed.

---

STATEMENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF "SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT."
To comrade secretary of the editorial board of the Central Organ.
4 November 1909. Paris.

Esteemed comrade! I request that in the next issue of the Central Organ you publish my resolution, rejected by two votes to two with one abstaining**, and my statement about my withdrawal from the editorial board of the Central Organ, as well as [provide] send me copies of my March resolution and the resolution adopted with the results of the voting.

With s.d. greetings,
N. Lenin.

P.S. I would also request that the editorial board of the Central Organ respond to me whether it will accept for the next issue of the Central Organ my discussion article on the question of methods of strengthening our party and its unity.

1 The present statement was provoked by the following c o n f l i c t that took place in the editorial board of "Social-Democrat." In view of the rapprochement that had become apparent in 1909 on the basis of practical work and in the struggle for an underground party between Bolsheviks and Menshevik-party-ists (Plekhanovists), Lenin proposed to the editorial board of "Social-Democrat" on 2 or 3 November 1909 an article "On the Methods of Strengthening Our Party and Its Unity" (this article has not been found to this day). The editorial board by majority vote rejected the article as an editorial contribution, proposing to publish it under the author's signature. Then Lenin brought to the editorial board's discussion a general question about strengthening the party and its unity, by reading his draft resolution on this question (see Works, XIV, 180). The editorial board at this moment consisted of: Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Martov, Varsky. For the resolution voted Lenin and Kamenev, against—Martov and Varsky, abstaining—Zinoviev, who had previously voted against the adoption of a political resolution. In connection with the rejection of both the article and the resolution, Lenin submitted the present statement about his withdrawal from the editorial board of "Social-Democrat."

The date and place of sending the letter are written in reverse order in the manuscript (place, date) and at the end of the letter, between the signature and postscript. Ed.

** In the manuscript erroneously written: "abstaining." Ed.

---

STATEMENT TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CENTRAL ORGAN ("SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT")
[5—6 November 1909]. Paris—Brussels.

We inform the editorial board of the Central Organ that comrade Lenin's resolution (on intra-party organizational tactics), as well as comrades Grigory and Kamenev's resolution (on the publication of Lenin's article or on the desirability of its publication), both withdraw. In view of this, Lenin withdraws his statement about his withdrawal from the editorial board of the Central Organ. At the same time, we undersigned vote that the entire "incident," as based on a misunderstanding, be considered null and non-avenu*.

Paris, 5 November 1909.
Grigory.
Yu. Kamenev.
Brussels 6 November 1909. Lenin.
Brussels 6 November. A. Barsky.

1 This statement to the editorial board of "Social-Democrat" liquidates the incident that took place within the editorial board on the basis of the rejection of Lenin's article and resolution on the methods of strengthening the party and its unity.

---

ON IDEOLOGICAL DISINTEGRATION AND CONFUSION AMONG RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY
[End of November—beginning of December, before 11, 1909]. Paris.

The struggle with otzovism and liquidationism, naturally occupying the first place among the tasks of genuinely Marxist and s.d. elements of our party, must not, however, obscure from us an evil more profound, which in essence gave birth to both otzovism and liquidationism and will, it seems, give birth to no few other new tactical absurdities. This evil is ideological disintegration and confusion, which has completely seized liberalism and is breaking through to our party from all sides.

Here is one of numerous illustrations of this confusion. One comrade, long working in the party, an old Iskra-ist and old Bolshevik, was removed by prison and exile from participation in the movement for a very long time, practically from the beginning of 1906. Recently he has returned to work, become acquainted with otzovism-ultimatism, rejected it with indignation and outrage as a shameful perversion of revolutionary s.d. tactics. Having become acquainted with the state of work in Odessa and St. Petersburg, this c o m r a d e came, among other things, to the following conclusion or "unformed result" of his observations: ... "it seems to me that the heaviest period has passed and that the task remains of liquidating the remnants of the epoch of collapse and disintegration." But these remnants are not small.

"Throughout the St. Petersburg work," we read in the same letter, "there is a sense of the absence of a guiding unified center, lack of discipline, disorder, absence of connections between separate parts, absence of unity and systematicity in work. Everyone works at their own risk and peril. In the underground organization there are strong otzovian tendencies, they seize even anti-otzovians"... (obviously, here are meant those Bolsheviks who contrary to repeated and decisive insistence by "Proletarii" do not break with the otzovists, do not wage merciless struggle with them, but attempt to make concessions, uselessly dragging out the inevitable resolution and not getting in fact any rejection of the otzovian-ultimatists from their absurd tactics)... "On this basis one characteristic phenomenon develops, which has manifested itself completely independently in Odessa as well: revolutionary idleness. Everywhere that the spirit of otzovism dominates, there is a striking impression that the underground organizations do nothing. One or two propaganda circles, struggle against legal possibilities—that's all the work. Predominantly it bears a disorganizing character, which you can see from the extensive materials I sent you from Odessa"... (used in the article:*)... "As regards legal possibilities, what is lacking in their use is a consistent s.d. line. In the darkness of reaction the opportunists of s.d. have raised their voice and "dare," knowing that it is now not dangerous, against the basic principles of s.d. Here you will encounter such extensive revision of revolutionary s.d., its program, tactics that the Bernstein revision will seem like child's play in comparison. The R.S.D.L.P. does not understand Marx, it has produced an incorrect analysis of the tendencies of economic development in Russia, in Russia there was never a system of serfdom, but rather a system of feudal-commercial, there were no contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the landowning nobility and there are none, there is no alliance between them either, for these two classes, invented by Russian s.d., represent one bourgeois class (this is a distinctive trait of Russia), autocracy is the organization of this class. The weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie, on which was based (??—the question marks belong to the author of the letter) the slogan of "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," is invented, and this slogan was and remains utopian. It must be thrown out together with the democratic republic, for the Russian train has switched to German rails"...

It is clear that before us is an instantaneous photograph of one of the many streamlets of that broad current of ideological confusion which gives birth to otzovism and liquidationism, sometimes mixing and even bringing closer the premises of the most extreme right and most extreme "left" stupidity. The first half of these premises (the absence of contradiction between the bourgeoisie and feudal landownership, etc.) is so absurd and nonsensical that it is difficult to take it seriously. It's not worth criti...

The present excerpt represents the beginning of a note which Lenin wrote for No. 50 of "Proletarii." This article was undoubtedly completed and fully prepared for publication, but its end was not preserved. Later Lenin apparently refused to publish this note, turning instead to a large article "On Some Sources of Contemporary Ideological Confusion," the first half of which he published in "Proletarii" No. 50 from 11 December (28 November) 1909 (see Works, XIV, 197). In the same issue of "Proletarii" among the "letters from St. Petersburg," (letter III) there was also published the letter of the "old Iskra-ist and old Bolshevik" which Lenin initially used in his present note. The letter was published over the signature "Tr." It is possible that its author was S. I. Gusev ("Travin").

* At this point the manuscript breaks off. Ed.

---

REMARKS ON AN ARTICLE BY F. M. IONOV*.
[End of December 1909—beginning of January, before 6, 1910]. Paris.

1) p. 7 at the end and p. 8 at the beginning: "c o m p l i c a t i o n" of life? Incorrect: Rather: simplification, but on altered ground
[also p. 11 at the end]. Remove this

2) P. 8. "Apart from otzovists no one proceeds from one or another decision of the question about the future revolutionary explosion." Incorrect! Remove.

3) p. 8 at the end. "Has no a c t u a l significance." Utter vulgarity.

4) p. 9: "multiplicity of political problems"
(Confusing! Remove).

5) P. 10. "Thus the former one enormous task of the destruction of absolutism is, as it were, exchanged for a whole series of concrete political tasks."

6) —likewise p. 11 at the beginning about "dispersal" into a series of questions.

6) p. 11. "for a long time one cannot react differently."
(The argument is incorrect).

7) p. 11. "Has the revolution ended—the question lost its acuteness" [remove, for this must either be explained t h o r o u g h l y  (which the author doesn't do) or shouldn't be touched on at all.]

8) p. 12—a v e r y  unclear, sloppily expressed argument, which it's better to remove, for it comes out almost as if in the revolution the s.d. were farther from the working mass than now.
[It's not necessary to prove the correct idea this way. It's necessary to say that precisely the revolution consolidate the masses of the working class with the s.d.]

9) p. 19) "they will say opportunism." We will not accuse you of opportunism for this, dear comrade I[onov], not for this place, but for other places!!

10) p. 21 and following] "decisions" of men and ben "approach each other"
[Incorrect. Inaccurate. The author s a y s  w o r s e  t h a n  h e  t h i n k s.]

11) pp. 33—54. Comrade Ionov! You don't notice that you're quoting liquidator and in any case doors-left-open-for-liquidators passages and passing them off as party passages!
(end of p. 33 and first 2 lines of p. 34).

12) likewise—p. 34 in the middle. [Likewise p. 39—40].

13) p. 35—"it is clear that s i m i l a r l y  to bens and mens they want to unite."
[Incorrect! You've confused everything, comrade Ionov!]

14) p. 38 at the end. Ionov has fallen into "misunderstanding."

The first eight points should be proposed directly to I[onov] to remove, and the last 6 (Nos. 9—14) only noted to him in a friendly way as a conversation with a contributor.

1 The article by F. M. Ionov: "Is Party Unity Possible?" was intended for publication in the Central Organ ("Social-Democrat"); in No. 10 of "Social-Democrat" from 6 January 1910, in an editorial note (at the end of the issue), it was indicated that the named article is being postponed until the next issue. Based on this indication the date of the present document is approximately established. Ionov's article was not published in "Social-Democrat" but in "Discussion Sheet" No. 1, from 19 (6) March 1910. From a comparison of the text of the published article with the present remarks on it, it is clear that the author followed the editorial (Lenin's) proposal and removed from the article almost all the passages marked in points 1—8 of the remarks, and took into account the remaining remarks (pp. 9—14).

"Discussion Sheet," an appendix to the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. ("Social-Democrat"), began publication from 19 (6) March 1910 by a resolution of the January 1910 plenum of the Central Committee. The editorial board of the "Sheet" included: G. Zinoviev—for the Bolsheviks, Y. Martov—for the Mensheviks, Chernov ("Olgin," V. Fomin)—for Menshevik-party-ists, G. Aleksinsky—for supporters of Otzovism, A. Barsky—for Poles, F. Ionov—for Bundists, P. Berzin—for Latvians. A total of three issues were published; the last—25 (12) May 1911.

ON THE GROUP "FORWARD"*

[First half of January 1910. Paris.]

Conspectus:

[Editors of Proletariat] After a series of lectures to the comrades of the Forward group and after a concluding conversation with them about party tasks and the position of the Forward group within the party, I find it necessary to set forth my position on the disputed questions in written form, in order to avoid misunderstandings and distortions.

[Editors of Proletariat believe] I believe that the platform of the Forward group is thoroughly permeated with views incompatible with party decisions (resolutions of the December 1908 conference) and contradicting these decisions.

The Forward platform's view of the contemporary moment is incorrect, because this view does not take into account the economic and political changes in Russia, expressed in a new step by the autocracy along the path of its transformation into a bourgeois monarchy. Therefore, from the Forward platform's view there follow** in practice otzovista tactical conclusions.

Therefore, the entire Forward platform is permeated with views denying the unconditional necessity of [using] the social-democratic party's participation in the III Duma and the unconditional necessity of building a new type of illegal party organization, surrounded by a network of legal organizations and necessarily utilizing every legal opportunity.

By putting forward in its platform the task of developing the so-called "proletarian philosophy," "proletarian culture," etc., the Forward group in fact takes the side of defending a group of literary figures who in this area are conducting anti-Marxist views.

By declaring otzovism to be a "legitimate shade," the Forward platform thereby covers for and defends otzovism, which does grave harm to the party.

STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTS

In view of all this, the personal declarations of the majority of comrades of the Forward group that they will write sincere correspondence to the Central Organ, will conduct ideologically and comradely struggle against otzovists, will earnestly promote the utilization of legal opportunities, will struggle against all attempts to blow up legal workers' organizations and enterprises—these declarations inspire distrust [on the part of the Proletariat editors] and cause us to fear that the Forward group will conduct, in local work and in work preparing the conference, a struggle against the party line.

For me,* the attitude [of the Proletariat editors] toward the local workers of the Forward group will be determined by what the work and activity of these workers in Russia will be, and how they will fulfill their declarations. Lenin.

---

SKETCH OF A LETTER TO THE "HOLDERS"*\\

Letter to the Trio of Germans

[February—March 1910. Paris.]

In order to explain the strange (at first glance) proposal and request with which we and the Central Committee address you, it is necessary to explain the position of our party.

In order to clarify this position, one must understand, first, the fact of the ferocity of counter-revolution and the terrible collapse of social-democratic organization and social-democratic work; second, the fundamental ideological-political currents within our party.

On the first question it suffices to note the enormous collapse of organizations everywhere, an almost complete cessation in many places. Mass flight of the intelligentsia. Only circles of workers and individuals remained. With difficulty does a young, inexperienced worker make his way forward.

On the second question. During the revolution, social-democracy had 2 currents (and 2 factions, actually a split): mensheviks and bolsheviks. Stockholm 1906 and London 1907. An opportunist and a revolutionary wing.

The collapse of 1907—8 caused (a) among petty bourgeois liquidators (definition), (ß) among bolsheviks—otzovism (and ultimatism). Definition.

(a) Beginning from III. 08 the petty bourgeois absolutely did not take part in the central party work and even attempted to disrupt it (VIII. 08). Abroad, they have the dominance (of students, immature bourgeois intelligentsia, etc.). Complete split abroad (thanks to the petty bourgeois) and their complete non-participation in party work plus struggle against the party.

The XII. 08 Conference stigmatizes this.

(ß) Otzovism-ultimatism among bolsheviks in 1908—9. Decisive struggle by bolsheviks against it and sidelining of otzovists-ultimatists. Removal.

Collapse in Russia grows.

Plekhanov's Statement VIII. 09 (("What do you want," liquidationism of the "Voice"; declaration of liquidationism as petty bourgeois opportunism; recognition of party crisis (the illness is terrible); exit from the editorial board of Public Movement, which has fallen into bourgeois-liberal publishing house))—

The significance of Plekhanov's statement = weak echo, confirming to the factional brothers among bolsheviks all their accusations.

The pull of petty bourgeois liquidators in Russia toward the party (especially workers: Petersburg, Moscow).

Experience of party unification on this basis, on the recognition of struggle on 2 fronts: against liquidationism and otzovism-ultimatism.

Conditions of unification from our side: unconditional recognition of struggle against liquidationism (1/2 measure of Central Committee: personal concession); cessation of factional struggle (== split abroad especially) and *loyal* subordination to Bolshevism within the party (bolsheviks + Poles in particular), which has pulled the party out of the crisis of 1907—9 and put it on the path of decisive struggle on 2 fronts.

Conditions of petty bourgeois liquidators: covering up of clear definition of liquidationism (1/2 measure in a *unanimous* resolution) and equality in the editorial board of the Central Organ (actually the dominant general-party institution given the extreme weakness and fragility of the Central Committee in Russia).

In the Central Committee passes an extremely fragile compromise: 1) unanimous resolution with the *name of liquidationism struck out*; 2) [struggle] 3 and 2 in the Central Organ under petty bourgeois declaration about "mechanical suppression," "besieged position," etc. 3) refusal of the petty bourgeois decisively, clearly and irrevocably to abandon the factional newspaper and factional organization, to recognize loyal subordination to the majority.

Hence our fears. Having disbanded the Bolshevik Faction, having given money to the Central Committee (actually 5 holders in case of random and wavering majority, with the dishonesty of otzovists-ultimatists), we fear (have every reason to fear) a foreign split by the petty bourgeois liquidators and their pushing through of liquidationism (in the form of equality in the editorial board).

We are convinced that in attempts at split organized from abroad by the petty bourgeois liquidators, the Central Committee (namely bolsheviks + nationalists) will not be able to struggle against liquidationism, and it will be necessary to *resume factional struggle*, to answer split with split.

Experience of "armistice": bolsheviks disarmed. Experience of "party way of life."

Conditions for the petty bourgeois liquidators: (a) complete disarmament—cessation of factional newspaper, factional treasury, factional split abroad; (ß) *loyal* implementation of the resolution on struggle against liquidationism; (γ) *loyal* subordination to the majority in the Central Organ; (δ) *loyal* assistance to the Central Committee in Russia.

If not—not*.

Coquetting of petty bourgeois liquidators with otzovists-ultimatists, impotence and capitulation to liquidators favoring Trotsky.

---

TO THE BOLSHEVIK FACTION AND MAIN LEADERSHIP OF POLISH SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY*\\

April 10, 1910. [Paris.]

Dear Comrades! Yesterday's exchange of views with your representatives in the general-party institution showed us that your delegates are displaying wavering in conducting decisive struggle for party spirit and against liquidators, are taking the path of "conciliation," which objectively serves only the liquidators.

Wavering at such an important moment of turning point in party life, according to our deep conviction, will benefit only the enemies of the party.

We shall be compelled to conduct the line of party spirit without your delegates, or perhaps even against them. We are informing you of this right now in a few words. We shall explain in detail with you in the coming days, most likely in print.

We hope you will understand why it is precisely to you, an organization with which we are so close ideologically and politically, that we turn in the first place.

With comradely greetings,

Members of the Central Organ Editorial Board—Bolsheviks: Lenin.
Gregory.

---

LETTER TO A. P. LIUBIMOV.

Comrade Mark.

April 10, 1910. [Paris.]

Esteemed Comrade! Yesterday's meeting finally convinced us of what we had scarcely doubted even before it, namely that you completely fail to represent the Bolshevik current, which you claim to represent in the Expanded Central Committee.

Having every reason to consider ourselves representatives of the Bolshevik current, based on letters from Russian comrades and on the facts concerning the policy of Bolsheviks abroad, we declare that your wavering in policy, your desire to tolerate the presence in the Expanded Central Committee of a liquidator and conspirator against the party Igor, to cover up the failure by him of party unification (instead of exposing Igor, demanding from the Central Committee his removal on an ultimatum basis and decisively taking the path of struggle against liquidators and defending the union of Bolsheviks and party mensheviks, a union which alone might still, perhaps, save the cause of unification), all this your conduct convinces us that, willingly or unwillingly, you are a plaything in the hands of liquidators.

We reserve the right to bring our declaration to the attention of the Bolsheviks, and if necessary to the entire party and the press.

Members of the Central Organ Bolsheviks: Lenin.*

---

LETTER TO A. I. LIUBIMOV\\

Comrade Mark.

April 10, 1910. [Paris.]

Esteemed Comrade! We take back our letter and regret the presentation to you of an unjust accusation of support for liquidationism in the Expanded Central Committee.

Gregory.
Lenin.

---

DECLARATION TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP.

To the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

[May 2, 1910*. Paris.]

Esteemed comrades! We consider it our duty to bring to your attention the fact that the situation in the Central Organ editorial board has, according to our deep and firm conviction, become completely untenable and that without a change in the composition of the Central Organ editorial board, the conduct of the party line appears to us absolutely impossible.

Only the first two meetings of the Central Organ editorial board after the plenum gave us hope for the possibility of joint work with comrades Martov and Dan. Comrade Martov's agreement with the Central Committee's letter on the conference (see No. 11 of the Central Organ—Martov signed this letter) testified unconditionally to his striving to loyally fulfill the plenum's decisions. Another tone was taken earliest by comrade Dan, who declared the editorial in No. 11 of the Central Organ harmful and in our presence accused Martov of centralist opportunism. For us, it became clear already from this that ardent Voice supporters consider Martov an "opportunist" in the sense of his yielding to party decisions, and that the whole question amounts to whether Martov will yield to their pressure.

Martov's article "On the Right Path" showed that yes. His unwillingness to submit it to the Discussion Pamphlet (although it clearly discusses the Central Committee's decision on the composition of the Central Organ) testified to the beginning of war. On the question of the relation of illegal organizations and workers to legal ones, Martov clearly turned in this article away from the Central Committee (the letter on the conference, signed by Martov) toward Dan. The "theory of equal rights" of illegal party members and legalists meant precisely a retreat from the Central Committee's letter, meant Martov's turn, because the contradiction of this "theory" with the Central Committee's letter is seen by everyone who does not wish to close their eyes.

When Martov, after his article was rejected (he refused to include a note, also refused the Discussion Pamphlet), declared in the Central Organ editorial board the beginning of his military actions, the position of him and Dan was fully clarified for us.

For the party it was clarified finally by: 1) the action of Michael, Roman, and George; 2) the manifesto of 16 Russian mensheviks; 3) No. 19—20 of the Voice; and 4) the schismatic manifesto of the 4 editors of the Voice. Now to this has been added 5) the openly liquidationist declaration by Potresov in Our Dawn No. 2, where he writes alongside Martov and others, and 6) the declaration of the Voice of Social-Democracy editorial against Plekhanov ("Necessary Addition to the Diaries"), where alongside the same Potresov, Martyanov, Martov and Axelrod treat the Central Organ of the party and party menshevism en canaille (as scoundrels).

In our pamphlet "Voice of Liquidators Against the Party" and to No. 12 of the Central Organ we gave an assessment of the first 4 declarations. Plekhanov in No. 13 of the Central Organ, coming out next week, gives an assessment of Potresov's article in Our Dawn.

Against the Voice of Social-Democracy, which has definitely turned toward the liquidators, party mensheviks are beginning to unite and come forward, as evidenced already by 4 resolutions of menshevik groups and parts of menshevik groups abroad (Paris, Nice, San-Remo, Geneva). Party mensheviks openly come forward against the Voice and against Russian liquidators, openly recognize the Voice's turn toward liquidationism after the plenum.

There emerges a party situation significantly changed compared to what it was during the plenum, and therefore unconditionally demanding changes in the composition of the Central Organ. The plenum wanted to give the opportunity to return to the party and loyally work in the party to all Voice supporters, all social-democrats, all legal workers of the labor movement wishing to transfer to the position of party spirit. The plenum counted on the fact that among the mensheviks there would not be a split of two parts of menshevism, but a general transition of both parts to the position of party spirit.

But in view of the Russian center of legalists (Potresov, Michael and Co.) and in view of the Voice of Social-Democracy, things turned out differently. Their split with party mensheviks became a fact. We have united around the Central Organ and Discussion Pamphlet a number of party mensheviks (Plekhanov, Rapoport, Avdeev), with whom we have established work fully free of any factionalism and party work, despite all our disagreements. Abroad, steps are being taken toward uniting the group of Bolsheviks and party mensheviks. On the contrary, groups of Voice supporters have decidedly taken a course against unification.

Therefore, it is not by chance or by personal reasons that a completely untenable situation has developed within the Central Organ editorial board. If a complete and hopeless squabble now reigns in our editorial board, if we three are decidedly unable to overcome the hostile position of two editors, if all work is being obstructed in the Central Organ, then this is an inevitable result of the falseness of the situation. According to the meaning of the plenum's decisions, rapprochement is necessary with party mensheviks, but in our Central Organ anti-party mensheviks are conducting a merciless struggle with those standing outside the Central Organ and helping it—party mensheviks!

We are fully convinced that comrades in the Central Committee themselves understand the absolute impossibility of such a situation and will not require from us an illustration of it through the history of countless collisions and scandals in the editorial board. These collisions, accusations, frictions, complete disruption of work—are a simple result of the changed political situation, which must inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Central Organ if a step is not taken, prescribed by the whole spirit of the plenum's decisions, namely: the replacement of anti-party, liquidationist, Voice mensheviks with party mensheviks, whom we are obliged to help fully enter the party and its leading institutions.

Party mensheviks have already declared in the Expanded Central Committee their desire to have representatives in the Central Organ editorial board (and in the Expanded Central Committee), that is, supporters of party menshevism.

We, for our part, declare that we are decisively unable to conduct the Central Organ of the party in collaboration with Voice supporters struggling against Plekhanov and supporting Potresov, Michael and Co. We are conducting in fact the Central Organ and can conduct it only in alliance with those mensheviks whom Dan, Martov and the other Voice supporters treat as scoundrels (see "Necessary Addition") and who are ready to help the party Central Organ, but not such a Central Organ in which menshevism is represented by Voice supporters, because it is impossible to conduct work exclusively by means of mechanical majoritizing people with whom there is no common party ground.

We hope that the Central Committee will take the necessary organizational steps to change the composition of the Central Organ editorial board and create a functioning party collegium.

Members of the Central Organ Editorial Board. Lenin*

---

DECLARATION TO MEMBERS OF THE BOLSHEVIK DELEGATION AT THE JANUARY PLENUM OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP, 1910*.

Declaration

(To comrades Innocent, Makary** and Kamenev).

May 10, 1910. Paris.

We hereby declare that we consider that as of May 7th there is running a stipulated two-month period, which must precede a declaration to the holders and the Central Committee about the violation by mensheviks of all those conditions upon the fulfillment of which the Bolsheviks agreed to dissolve the Bolshevik Faction as an organization.

For myself and for comrade N. Levin
Gregory.

---

POSTSCRIPT TO A LETTER BY L. KAMENEV AND G. ZINOVIEV TO N. A. ROZHKOV.

[Autumn 1910. Paris.]

I completely concur with my colleagues and earnestly beg [you] to postpone, refuse, reconsider, correspond.

Greetings and brotherhood! Lenin.

---

APPENDIX*

LETTER BY L. KAMENEV AND G. ZINOVIEV TO N. A. ROZHKOV

[Autumn 1910. Paris]

Dear N. A.! Over the past years we have had to read all sorts of projects, or rather, schemes of organization. But we have never encountered anything more utopian, divorced from life, and harmful than the project entitled "A Necessary Initiative," signed—alas!—not by the Prokopovichs couple, than we have found. The problem is not that such a project appeared—it had to arise in contemporary Russia and we were able to observe this idea in embryonic form in the camp of our enemies—and it is precisely for this reason we opened a campaign against them; the problem is that N. R. has taken it upon himself to synthesize the scattered ideas of the Prokopovichs, Potresovs, Our Dawn, and the Voice into one, to say what they fear to say.

Do you not see that this project is merely a combination arising in the Vekhi atmosphere of the Larin "broad" [organization] and the SR "open" [organization]? Do you not see that it suffers from all the deficiencies of the Larin rejection of Marxism and the SR rejection of "the underground"? Do Marxists like N. R. really want to repeat the shameful failure of their ingenious calculation on legality?

We shall not go into particulars: even without these clarifications we willingly believe in N. R.'s good intentions. But does he not see that these are the same good intentions with which the road to the hell of opportunism and liquidationism is paved? Does he not see that his project, inspired by good intentions, will in reality become a point of concentration of everything anti-Marxist at the present moment, that it is precisely to this—to an open party, which does not raise struggle to a principle—that the hidden thoughts of revisionists and liquidators are striving? Does he want tomorrow for Izgoev—from whose embrace the caught Potresov is vainly struggling to break free—to place alongside this name—and justly—the name N. R.? He will be right! For he will be evaluating not N. R.'s subjective motives, but the objective meaning of his project.

But, N. R. will say, I only want to cover up the old essence. But if this cover-up will actually cover up the old essence, then the project is naiveté, unworthy of a historian. To hope that someone can be deceived or that someone can be forced to change the articles of the Penal Code because of the cover-up—this is truly to indulge constitutional illusions. What do you mean, my dear! If you are Sidor, then call yourself Sergey as much as you like, but you will be treated as Sidor, whatever articles you cunningly slip to the prosecutor. I recommend to your attention the fate of the Kadets, who, after all, did not even have to change their name. If your project is a cover-up—it is naive and harmful, insofar as it does not take into account that the system of cover-up has its own logic, directly leading to Prokopovich.

But if it is not a cover-up, but a replacement, then the new project differs from the one being replaced precisely in how it differs, I repeat, the SR from the narodnik. This is inevitable, however many incantations at the outset you make. What does "not raising struggle to a principle" mean? If the matter concerns factionalism, we without success did not raise it to a principle, while sirs Aleksinsky have for some years successfully seduced workers. We do not differ from liquidators and from N. R. in this, but in the fact that in their projects the very principle of struggle is eliminated, being replaced by the principle of adaptation. These projects are harmful not because they might be realized—for that one would have to wait for the permission of Stolypin—but because, even being utopian, they sow harmful illusions, erase the lines between revolutionary Marxism and the Prokopovichs, finally, not embodying themselves in a unified organization, they distort even now every separate utterance.

We must say more. Even opportunists do not go in their adaptation as far as N. R. goes. Until now we have had the right to say of them: they are moving along the road toward an open party. N. R. has already arrived at it. Does he not wish to receive in answer to his article responses in Our Dawn and the Voice in such a spirit: we praise the tendency, we note the brilliance of mind (we register him as a contributor), but we believe he has carried it too far. Dan and Martov will excellently describe for him the harm of excessive liquidationism, the Manilovism of his project, the ignoring of the entire political situation. "I do not know what is being liquidated here," writes N. R. Truly, this is so clear that even Potresov will be able to replace a Bolshevik in clarifying this question.

Is this what N. R. wants? N. R. wants to struggle against liquidationism on its own ground, to "wrest the initiative from them."

But to wrest from them the initiative of creating a new party, the sole real meaning of which will be in counterposing it to the old, to its traditions, to its spirit and therefore, if it is tolerated, only insofar as it will be an instrument of struggle against the old and its spirit—to wrest such an initiative means not to struggle against liquidationism (which N. R. apparently does not wish to renounce), but to do their work, to serve them. Does N. R. want this? Does he understand what he is projecting, who will use his project even before the moment when Stolypin places his resolution on it? To divert from the old, that he will be able to do, to create something new, even minimally satisfying the tasks of "those adhering to their former worldview"—never. In the best case (or in the worst—I do not know) the "Political Society, etc." will not be a workers', mass society, but something like a Kadet (also a cover-up!) "Society of Financial Reforms," in which professors of opportunism and liquidationism like Prokopovich, Potresov and others will be able to fool workers and public opinion, speaking in the name of "the interests of workers" and thanking fate that they will be able to cover up their occupation with the name of a Bolshevik.

But, N. R. will say, I propose that "we" implement all this, I propose that "we" take this on. So it is written in the article. But—alas!—deeds do not correspond to words. When one wants "us" to do something, one does not write manifestoes without first talking it over with these "us." But N. R. did not even see fit to inform these "us" of his suppositions, did not trouble to learn their opinion, although he knew that his situation is such that the consequences of his step cannot have only individual consequences. This is an anarchistic method of action, for the consequences of which N. R., it appears, has decided to take responsibility himself. What will come from such a method of action? If the project receives publicity, the nearest friends with whom N. R. was planning to "wrest the initiative," will come out decisively against him. But his recent enemies will seize upon this project. Then N. R. will see that he is not wresting the initiative from the liquidators, but is helping their initiative. (There is nothing more harmful than when intelligent individualism hastens with its schemes into the public eye, forgetting about its responsibility and its obligations as a member of a collective. It is always punished in the most unexpected way for it and then throws up its hands, amazed at what company it has gotten into.)

(We very much would not want to see N. R. in this situation.) Therefore we recommend that he hold up his article, enter into correspondence with us about the questions raised. Then at least the path of persuasion will have been tried before embarking on the path of open public struggle.

But if the article appears, if it is dragged into the light of day even by enemies, our decisive distancing from this scheme is inevitable and will be expressed without equivocation. We cannot permit the compromise of a definite current, having its place in history, by anyone, and however great his services before this current. Both our faith in the cause we are defending in an epoch of contemporary collapse with the unceasing struggle of enemies of revolutionary Marxism, and which we conduct and will conduct however broadly the contemporary atmosphere has seized even our former fellow-workers, will compel us to this. Our task is, in an epoch of faintheartedness and liquidationism, to defend and to build further the old party, exposing the Manilovism, the fictitiousness and harmfulness of liquidationist innovation, under whatever seductive sauce it is served. We think that N. R. makes an error in evaluating the contemporary situation, in the tasks of the party. So long as this error has not been brought before the court of the public, has not been cast into the form of a political utterance—we are ready to discuss his project in our collective. Once his carelessness leads to a public scandal—we shall be compelled to expose the root of this error in N. R.'s submission to liquidationism.

We await N. R. to hold up his article and immediately answer us on this letter.

Yu. Kamenev.

It is a pity, a pity, dear N. A., that we have to send you this far from gentle missive. But what can one do?—A friend of Plato, but... We certainly do not want war with you. We never even dreamed it would be necessary. But if "A Necessary Initiative" should appear, war—and at that the most destructive—would become inevitable. The fault is probably above all your 27-year confinement and the detachment resulting from it. But in politics they will not go into this... If you can, renounce such an utterance, or—at least postpone the matter in order to think it through once and again. Measure twice, cut once...

Best regards.
Your Zinoviev.

in "Sotsial-demokrat," No. 25 of December 21 (8) of that same year. (See both of Lenin's articles in Works, XV, 272 and 297.)
4 Mymretsov—a character from G. Uspensky's sketch "The Booth," a police officer (gorodovoi), whose assignment was to "drag along and not let go" the surrounding townspeople. Mymretsov—an artistic personification of the autocratic-police regime of tsarist Russia.
5 Precisely thus or nearly thus did the editorial board of "Nasha Zaria" welcome and "criticize" this statement by Rozhkov in Nos. 9–10 of that journal. Rozhkov's article in "Nasha Zaria" was accompanied by a special editorial note. In this note it was said: "In publishing N. R-kov's article as valuable testimony to the present-day searchings in social-democratic circles for paths... we note only that N. R-kov apparently reduces the struggle for the open existence of the party to the struggle for the realization of the "society" he proposes. And in this reduction... lies the fundamental defect of his proposal. Because... both the party as a historical legacy and the party as a still-only-forming whole cannot be hidden under a pseudonym, it is impossible to contain them within the boundaries of such a society.... N. R-kov puts this task (the task of "seeking means... for the construction by the proletariat of open political organizations"—Ed.) on the agenda of the day, and in this—in our view—lies the significance of his article, the significance of his thought, acquiring particular urgency in view of the approaching electoral campaign."
6 N. Rozhkov was a member of the CC (elected at the London Congress) and a member of the Bolshevik center, elected by the Bolshevik Faction of the London Congress.

2103
NOTES ON THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF "RABOCHAYA GAZETA"
[October 3, 1910. Paris.]

Mark*:
Mark's speech:
1) How was it that a fraction could be created for the struggle for the party? (One must struggle with anti-party elements, and for this [one needs a] strong party).
2) Struggle against Pravda and the conciliators—this is a party split.
2 bis*) Fractional newspaper = "Fractional squabbles."
(3) There is no positive work in the CC—work in Lumière.
* A. I. Lyubimov.
The word ("Mark") in the manuscript is written on the left side of the text horizontally (bottom to top), opposite points 1, 2, and 2 bis. Ed.
** Comrade Streltsov. Ed.
*** for the second time; additionally. Ed.
Genosse Streltzow**.

(3 bis) [Not in conducting a "line" into action.]
4) "Organization of a fraction for struggle with party elements"—that's what the Be-ki want.
5) When the Fraction is exposed to the Me-ki (liquidators), you will meet and clash with Plekhanov.
6) "Accusation of liquida... of the one who stands for local work."
"Stated unsuccessfully."
7) Set up an (illegal) organization, just one in Russia, and by this you will defeat the liquidators.
Lozowski:
Pravda has demagoguery, but it is precisely for its "direction" that it is read—and not at all for the direction.
repetition of the same disputes, Fractional, as in the CC.
Lozowski: Pravda will be forgiven much for the fact that during the period of dissolution it called into the party. One should not underestimate its services. And the liquidators, publishing "Zhizn," are doing "deeply useful" work, are doing social-democratic work, are doing work deeply connected with the masses.
"Facts" are honored in liquidationism.
Lozowski:
Denial of the party is the carrying out of the ideas of the workers' congress.
The "danger" of the fraction
("From below" Lozowski did not understand)
Lozowski:
Lozowski:
In Copenhagen a delegation received an unexpected vote
Lozowski:
The question of graduated contributions deeply interests the mass.
I do not wish to defend "Pravda."
1 This document undoubtedly refers to the meeting of the second (Bolshevik) Paris group in support of the RSDLP, in which the question of "Rabochaya Gazeta" was discussed, after this question had fundamentally been resolved at a meeting in Copenhagen between Lenin and the Bolsheviks with members of the Duma social-democratic Fraction, Poletaev and Pokrovsky, and with Plekhanov during the International Socialist Congress. The meeting, at which the statements of the conciliators A. I. Lyubimov ("Mark") and A. Lozowski, cited in Lenin's notes, took place on October 3, 1910. At this meeting the conciliators Lyubimov, Lozowski, and Vladimirov ("Leva") decidedly objected to the creation of "Rabochaya Gazeta" as a Bolshevik organ, and with protest left the meeting (see Works, XXVIII, 566, Lenin's letter to Semashko of October 4, 1910).
8 Lenin mentions here "Genosse Strelzow" as a parallel to Lyubimov's statement against Bolshevik methods of struggle for party principle. At this very time Lenin had just read an article by R. Streltsov in "Sozialistische Monatshefte" with open defense of the liquidators and with slander against Bolshevik tactics in the struggle for party principle. In the coming days Lenin did justice to Streltsov in his article "On How Some Social-Democrats Make the International Acquainted with the Condition of Affairs in the RSDLP," published in No. 17 of "Sotsial-demokrat" of October 8 (September 25), 1910 (Works, XIV, 364).
a The reference is to "Rabochaya Gazeta."

26772
STATEMENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CC

T[o the] Chairman of the meeting of the editorial board of the CC.
7. XI. 10.* [Paris.]

Esteem[ed] Comrade!
Having left the meeting today, I consider it my duty to explain to you, in case of any party (and quasi-party) talk and distortion, the significance of my action. I consider myself not only entitled, but obligated to refuse to participate in the so-called "discussion," which serves as a pretext for the liquidationist part of the editorial board to put forward the worst gossip of the worst of anti-party elements. When Martov, for example, refers to the fact that the Otzovists are part of the party, while at the same time loudly spreading the gossip of the most hooligan elements of the Otzavist emigration, as though comrade Viktor's case has been concluded or buried by reason of bribery*, and expressing at the same time a demand to protect them, Martov and Dan, from such suspicions of the "party," it is clear to everyone that under the cover of "protection" from Otzavist blackmail we are being presented with nothing other than liquidationist assistance to the worst sort of Otzavist antics.
* In the manuscript the date stands at the end of the letter, before the signature. Ed.

Considering it beneath my dignity to participate in a "discussion" in which such things are said, I declare that I shall henceforth strive to leave the meeting during such a "discussion."
With comradely greetings, N. Lenin.
1 The chairman of the meeting of the editorial board of the CC was, in all likelihood, either A. Barsky or V. Leder, who replaced him.
2 At the January plenary session of the CC in 1910, among other things, the question of the case of CC member and member of the Bolshevik center V. Taratuty ("Viktor"), who demanded that the CC establish an investigation regarding the rumors circulating in the party about his provocation. The CC plenum appointed an investigative commission for this case consisting of 2 Mensheviks, 1 Bolshevik, 1 Polish social-democrat, and 1 Bundist. The commission, during the course of 1910, interrogating dozens of witnesses and reviewing up to a hundred testimonies, rendered a unanimous decision of the complete absence of any data for accusing "Viktor" of provocation and completely rehabilitated him from all suspicion in this regard.

19188
STATEMENT TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP.

To the CC.
[End of December 1910 or beginning of January 1911. Paris.]

Regarding our statement, there exist (and are deliberately circulated by the liquidators-Golosovtsy) false rumors, which we consider it our duty to counter with a brief exposition of the essence of the matter and our views.

Formally the matter stands as follows: at the plenum of January 1910 a contract was concluded between the Fraction and the party. According to the contract, our Fraction obligated itself to dissolve, *if* the remaining Fractions dissolve. The condition has not been fulfilled. We restore our freedom to struggle against the liberals and anarchists, encouraged by the leader of the "conciliators," Trotsky. The question of money plays a secondary role for us, although, of course, we do not intend to give money from the Fraction to the bloc of liquidators-anarchists + Trotsky, while by no means renouncing our right to expose before the international social-democracy this bloc, its financial "foundations" (the notorious "funds" of the Vperyodists, protected from exposure by Trotsky and the Golosovtsy) and so forth.*
* The right to represent the Fraction is given to our six from the plenum. Of six votes we have four: three in Paris and one by written proxy (by Meshkovsky [I. P. Goldenberg. Ed.]). If Meshk[ovsky] should venture to renounce it, we shall ask the remaining members of the CC elected in London and candidates, and also the Bolsheviks who have declared themselves through influential work.

On the substance of the matter, we remove from ourselves responsibility for that contribution to the decomposition of the party which was rendered by the "conciliatory" *(i.e., indulgent toward the Golosovtsy-liberals and Vperyodists-anarchists)* policy. We warned the party officially and openly even before No. __ of the CC, having declared in the leaflet "Voice of the Liquidators Against the Party" about the conspiracy against the party.

If some found these words to be an exaggeration, events have completely and literally confirmed us. The liquidators-liberals from outside the party have strengthened themselves, created a Fraction completely hostile ("Nasha Zaria," "Vozrozhdenie," "Delo Zhizni") to social-democracy and ready to sabotage the party's cause in the elections to the Fourth Duma. The Golosovtsy helped Messrs. Potresov and Co. decompose the party, spoiling and hindering work from within the central institutions. The Foreign Bureau of the CC—the only permanent practical organ—fell into the hands of the liquidators thanks partly to the impotence of the Bund and the Latvians, and partly to direct assistance to the Golosovtsy from the liquidationist elements of these national organizations. The Foreign Bureau of the CC not only did nothing to unite the party comrades abroad, not only aided in no way the struggle against the Golosovtsy and Vperyodists, but covered the anti-party "funds" of the anarchists and the steps of the liberals.

The Vperyodists, thanks to the "conciliatory" support of Trotsky and the "Golos," have strengthened themselves into a Fraction with transport, agents, and have increased many times over since the plenum of January 1910.

What was already fully outlined at the plenum (defense, for example, of the anarchist school by Trotsky and the Golosovtsy), has developed to the end. The bloc of liberals and anarchists with the help of conciliators shamelessly destroys the remains of the party from without and helps decompose it from within. The game of formalism with "inviting" the Golosovtsy and Trotskyists into the centers utterly weakens the already-weakened party comrades.

Removing ourselves from responsibility for this game, we shall conduct our party line of rapprochement with the Plekhanovites and merciless struggle against the bloc. It goes without saying that we shall support in every way all steps of the CC, if it manages to assemble in Russia, restore the central apparatus in Russia, create a party organizational base (instead of the liquidationist Foreign Bureau of the CC) abroad, and begin work against the liberals and anarchists.

In conclusion, two words about the split with which the "conciliators" frighten us. The split *de facto* is now complete, because the Potresovites and Vperyodists have completely split off and nothing will return them to the party line. If the CC decisively condemns them as liberals and anarchists, there will be no split *de jure*, because they cannot defend their line. If the centers stop playing at "inviting" the liberals—servants of Potresov (Golosovtsy) and Vperyodists—then there will be no split *de jure*, and workers will definitively abandon both the Vperyodists and [the Golosovtsy] Potresovites. A different policy will make the split protracted, encouraging the Potresovites and Vperyodists. As for us, from this "other" policy, as authorized representatives of the Bolshevik current, to which the plenum of January 1910 recognized leading significance, we completely disassociate ourselves.

Representatives of the Bolshevik current who signed the contract with the CC at the plenum and have authority (by proxy from Meshkovsky) to abrogate it:
1)
2)
3)

1 On December 15, 1910, a statement was submitted to the Foreign Bureau of the CC by representatives of the Bolsheviks, participants in the January plenum of the CC of 1910, signed by Lenin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev and by proxy of Meshkovsky, demanding the immediate convocation of a plenum of the CC to decide the question of the return of property of the Bolshevik Fraction transferred to "trustees" (K. Kautsky, Fr. Mehring, and K. Zetkin) after the decision of the plenum regarding the liquidation of fractional centers. The text of this statement and an exposition of the facts that followed are found in the letter of the representative of the Bolsheviks to the Foreign Bureau of the CC (in documents and materials to Lenin's Works, XV, 581). The conduct of the majority of the Foreign Bureau of the CC regarding the convocation of a plenum of the CC on the Bolsheviks' statement was exposed and illuminated by Lenin in the article "On the Condition of Affairs in the Party" (Works, XV, 60–70).
1 The declaration of the Bolsheviks about their dissolution of the fractional center, about the cessation of the fractional organ "Proletariy," and about the transfer of property (partly to the CC, partly to third-party "trustees") was announced by representatives of the Bolsheviks at the January plenum of the CC of 1910, and on the basis of it the plenum adopted a decision regarding fractional centers. (The text of the declaration is found in documents and materials to Lenin's Works, XIV, 474).
8 The anti-party bloc of liquidators, Vperyodists, and Trotsky, which was actually forming at this time, is illuminated by Lenin in the article "On the Condition of Affairs in the Party" (see note 1 above).
4 The Bolshevik "six of the plenum"—the six who were present at the January plenum of the CC of 1910: four members of the CC, Bolsheviks, with decisive votes—I. Dubrovinský, I. Goldenberg, G. Zinoviev, V. Nogín, and two with consultative votes—Lenin (from the editorial board of "Sotsial-demokrat," candidate member of the CC) and Kamenev (from the editorial board of "Proletariy"). In Paris